I don’t know what kind of cradles you’re referring to.
> Scholars generally acknowledge six cradles of civilization: Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Ancient India and Ancient China are believed to be the earliest in Afro-Eurasia,[6][7] while the Caral–Supe civilization of coastal Peru and the Olmec civilization of Mexico are believed to be the earliest in the Americas. [WikiSource](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization)
TheBanishedBard on
I feel like this is an intentional erasure of the vibrant cultures that flourished along the Danube
xin4111 on
All these civilizations used pictographs, but Chinese characters are the only one still in use today.
And all four in old world originated from semi-arid zone (i am not familiar with new world two), which are all quite poor regions nowadays.
mountaineer_93 on
I was reading about Norte Chico the other day, legitimately one of the most fascinating ancient civilizations that never gets talked about. 1491 has a great section about it. I’m sure there’s likely older stuff in the americas as well given how often the estimated start date for the peopling of the continent keeps getting pushed back.
Also, Anatolia may need to be its own region with all the early discoveries there and what they’re finding out about karahan and gobekli Tepe (seems like they may have had towns built around them), Nevali Cori, and Çatalhöyük.
Edit: on second thought it looks like the Fertile Crescent on this map captures most of those sites or at least gets close. It may warrant its own distinct classification still though. Pretty wild to lump the Nile in with the Fertile Crescent as well.
ak8664 on
Some maps group Egypt with the Fertile Crescent to show regional interaction, but Egypt is more accurately described as a separate cradle of civilization along the Nile River
xbhaskarx on
Egypt and Mesopotamia are two separate cradles of civilization… Also why the hell would this not label the Nile River or Lake Texcoco??
Fertile Crescent was an independent origin of agricultural but not a cradle civilization.
Mesopotamia gave rise to a civilization, which is not part of the fertile crescent. The distinction matters; in the fertile crescent, agriculture was possible with rainfall alone. In Mesopotamia, irrigation was necessary for agriculture. The feedback loop between needing irrigation, and that allowing more complex societies, is likely the core process that created the Sumerian civilization.
For some reason this map smashes Mesopotamia, the fertile crescent, and Egypt together.
Numerous-Future-2653 on
The „Cradles of Civilization“ implies other cultures and groups were not „civilized“ like these groups and they had to have derived their „civilization“ from these cradles. This is not the way to teach history.
frankenmaus on
I feel like the American cultures were more like ‚playpens of civilization‘.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
10 Kommentare
I don’t know what kind of cradles you’re referring to.
> Scholars generally acknowledge six cradles of civilization: Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Ancient India and Ancient China are believed to be the earliest in Afro-Eurasia,[6][7] while the Caral–Supe civilization of coastal Peru and the Olmec civilization of Mexico are believed to be the earliest in the Americas. [WikiSource](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization)
I feel like this is an intentional erasure of the vibrant cultures that flourished along the Danube
All these civilizations used pictographs, but Chinese characters are the only one still in use today.
And all four in old world originated from semi-arid zone (i am not familiar with new world two), which are all quite poor regions nowadays.
I was reading about Norte Chico the other day, legitimately one of the most fascinating ancient civilizations that never gets talked about. 1491 has a great section about it. I’m sure there’s likely older stuff in the americas as well given how often the estimated start date for the peopling of the continent keeps getting pushed back.
Also, Anatolia may need to be its own region with all the early discoveries there and what they’re finding out about karahan and gobekli Tepe (seems like they may have had towns built around them), Nevali Cori, and Çatalhöyük.
Edit: on second thought it looks like the Fertile Crescent on this map captures most of those sites or at least gets close. It may warrant its own distinct classification still though. Pretty wild to lump the Nile in with the Fertile Crescent as well.
Some maps group Egypt with the Fertile Crescent to show regional interaction, but Egypt is more accurately described as a separate cradle of civilization along the Nile River
Egypt and Mesopotamia are two separate cradles of civilization… Also why the hell would this not label the Nile River or Lake Texcoco??
Just thought I’d nitpick that the original „fertile crescent“ didn’t actually include what we now call Mesopotamia (which was unsettled at the time), and [is further north over the Tigris and Euphrates while extending well into southern Anatolia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Fertile_Crescent_7500_BC_NOR.PNG).
Fertile Crescent was an independent origin of agricultural but not a cradle civilization.
Mesopotamia gave rise to a civilization, which is not part of the fertile crescent. The distinction matters; in the fertile crescent, agriculture was possible with rainfall alone. In Mesopotamia, irrigation was necessary for agriculture. The feedback loop between needing irrigation, and that allowing more complex societies, is likely the core process that created the Sumerian civilization.
For some reason this map smashes Mesopotamia, the fertile crescent, and Egypt together.
The „Cradles of Civilization“ implies other cultures and groups were not „civilized“ like these groups and they had to have derived their „civilization“ from these cradles. This is not the way to teach history.
I feel like the American cultures were more like ‚playpens of civilization‘.